Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30668627›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of hypertension2019

Schedules for Self-monitoring Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review.

James A Hodgkinson, Richard Stevens, Sabrina Grant, Jonathan Mant, Emma P Bray, F D Richard Hobbs, Una Martin, Claire Schwartz, David McCartney, Rachel O'Mahony and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of hypertension, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The importance of personal documentation for patients living with long-term illness symptoms after pituitary surgery: A Constructivist Grounded Theory study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

James A HodgkinsonInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Richard StevensNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sabrina GrantSchool of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jonathan MantPrimary Care Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Emma P BrayStroke Research Unit. School of Nursing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
F D Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Una MartinInstitute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Claire SchwartzNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David McCartneyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rachel O'MahonyCentre for Guidelines, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.
Rafael Perera-SalazarNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nia RobertsBodleian Health Care Libraries, Knowledge Centre, Oxford, UK.
Sarah StevensNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Bryan WilliamsNIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, UK.
Richard J McManusNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Department of Health IS-SPC-0514-10043Department of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-015Department of Health RP-PG-1209-10051Medical Research Council MC_PC_11004Medical Research Council MC_PC_13090
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelf-monitoring of blood pressure better predicts prognosis than clinic measurement, is popular with patients, and endorsed in hypertension guidelines. However, there is uncertainty over the optimal self-monitoring schedule. We therefore aimed to determine the optimum schedule to predict future cardiovascular events and determine "true" underlying blood pressure.

methodsSix electronic databases were searched from November 2009 (updating a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] systematic review) to April 2017. Studies that compared aspects of self-monitoring schedules to either prognosis or reliability/reproducibility in hypertensive adults were included. Data on study and population characteristics, self-monitoring regime, and outcomes were extracted by 2 reviewers independently.

resultsFrom 5,164 unique articles identified, 25 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies were included from the original NICE review, making a total of 37 studies. Increasing the number of days of measurement improved prognostic power: 72%-91% of the theoretical maximum predictive value (asymptotic maximum hazard ratio) was reached by 3 days and 86%-96% by 7 days. Increasing beyond 3 days of measurement did not result in better correlation with ambulatory monitoring. There was no convincing evidence that the timing or number of readings per day had an effect, or that ignoring the first day's measurement was necessary.

conclusionsHome blood pressure should be measured for 3 days, increased to 7 only when mean blood pressure is close to a diagnostic or treatment threshold. Other aspects of a monitoring schedule can be flexible to facilitate patient uptake of and adherence with self-monitoring.

Indexed as

Patient ComplianceBlood PressureBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryHumansHypertensionblood pressureblood pressure monitoringhypertensionregression dilutionscheduleself-monitoringsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30668627
PMCPMC6420684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.